Christian Haul wrote: > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > Christian Haul wrote: <snip/> > > > As a sidenote, if 2.1 will take some while as it seems, should we > > > consider to backport some 'cool' features? I volunteer to backport > > > usage of InputModules for the compiled sitemap. Mmh, would help to > > > have them moved out of scratchpad for that. > > > > > Hmm, I'm a little bit against this - as I see the problem that we > > start backporting more and more and finally have no differences > > between 2.1 and 2.0.x. > > So? Really, why shouldn't 2.0.x evolve into 2.1 some day? At least if we > don't put unstable or incompatible features in it. Having a development > branch and a release branch is IMHO better than scratchpad :-) And the > linux kernel does that quite well.
This spurred me to scan the archives. I remembered that we had discussion about this in 2001-12 where it seemed that branch management was going to become easier. ----- http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=100857610623046 Re: patch politics <quote who="Carsten"> Hm, I hope that not the whole HEAD is experimental. It *should* be very similar to the 2.0 branch, except for some experimental components. We created the 2.0 branch some month ago exactly for this experimental stuff which is now much better located in the scratchpad directory. So we really should move all experimental code of 2.1 into scratchpad, sync 2.1 with 2.0 and then only use the HEAD. If we than make a 2.0.1 very fast we can forget about the 2.0 branch. </quote> ----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
